Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:05PM
from the get-an-ilife dept.

Apple once again streamed their latest keynote where they unveiled iLife '11 (more fullscreen and Facebook in iPhoto, Audio editing and automatic trailers in iMovie, Rhythm correction and lessons in Garage Band). FaceTime for the Mac will connect video chat to phones with a Beta starting today. Next we get a preview of OS X Lion which will have an App Store and new UI bits shipping this summer. The Mac App Store will launch on Snow Leopard in 90 days. The New MacBook Air is under 3lbs, 13.3" screen, Core 2 Duo, solid state only storage. There's also an 11.6" version starting at $999 with 64gb of storage shipping today.

And people bitch at me when I say that Apple is driving towards exactly this. The only reason they don't go the couple steps further to defeat jailbreaks is because it keeps people fucking around on their systems instead of pushing for something truly open.

Also, eventually Apple will shift to iOS. At that point, the only question of lock down is "how and to what degree" since the answer is inevitably "yes."

This is just another nice income stream for Apple. Does anyone really think that Apple would remove every other way of installing software from the Mac? They'd have to deny shell usage, direct access to the file system, prevent browsers from downloading executables, etc. I can't see it happening on OS X- they need something for developers to develop on, after all.

But, if they started to make larger iOS devices (as the rumor mill is saying lately) I'm sure they'll be as locked down as an iPhone.

It gets rid of a lot of developer headaches, including finding a place with high bandwidth mirrors for consumers to download and fetch updates.

Yes, Apple gets a 30% chunk, but IMHO, it is a good thing to have long term.

Wow, and people talk about the "Microsoft tax". How long until the only way to get software on your Mac desktop is via Apple's store and all Mac developers are required to pay a 30% tribute to Apple? And, since taxes are passed on to consumers, every time you as a customer buys an "app" from the store it's really you who's paying that insane 30%.

But that's beside the main point. Do you really thing most smaller developers can't find a place to host their website and software which costs less than 30% of all their sales? Keep in mind that most developers don't need Steam/Microsoft/Amazon levels of bandwidth.

Well, we know that Jobs loves electronic distribution (not supporting Blu-Ray playback for instance, in favor of Digital Downloads from the iTunes store).

There is probably a market for this though. As more and more people get used to using iOS, they get used to the AppStore. Most average would probably jump at the idea of running a "real computer" with the same "ease of use" features (even though you or I will cringe).

How often do most people usually install software?

The OS comes pre-installed. They MIGHT install an Office Suite or a Web Browser right after they get a new computer. After that, the only time they install software is if they need more functionality (yearly Tax Return Software/New Printer/New Game/Video Editing Software). With the exception of Gaming, most people don't really install new software very often once they have a web-browser and an Office Suite. For them, the idea of Easily Installing/Deinstalling software with just one or two mouse clicks is a compelling idea.

Correction: they're not doing it now. Wait a few years. Just like Microsoft with its Xbox - ultimately, it will have Windows for business, and XBox for consumers. Apple will work on a similar distribution.

As long as it is not the only place to buy applications for the Mac, then that's ok. We already have steam for games and that works well.

The issue I have with the app store on the iPhone/iPad is that if it falls into a category that doesn't meet the puritan standards, then you can't buy it. It would be nice to see a place for application that are API compliant, but don't fill some of the other check-boxes.

I don't see the problem here. As with IBM, and then Microsoft, once Apple gets too arrogant and thinks it has everything its own way, people will be ready for a change, and some new company or technology will yank the rug out from under them. Don't like what Apple is doing? Buy something else.

And for a huge number of consumers, they'll be quite happy with the locked down device with Apple as gatekeeper. They'll have everything they need or want, will pay a bit extra for that, and won't even notice the/. crowd wailing and gnashing its collective teeth over Jobs' "war on openness".

When will/. readers acknowledge that they're not the entire fucking market for computing devices?

I'm curious as to how an App Store indicates the coming armageddon of a "locked down Mac". It will not be the only place to get Mac software (said right in the keynote). The majority of Mac buyers are the Mom, Pop and arty university student base, who really don't know of the existence of most Mac software. As a developer, a storefront for my software built right into the desktop of every new Mac sold is hardly going to be a bad thing - I get millions of eyeballs and potential one click customers for a 30% cut. If I don't like those terms, I can use the traditional distribution methods.

Now, if you're going into hypotheticals, they *might* in the future remove the traditional distribution, thus breaking all software that all their customers have ever bought for earlier versions of the Mac, and alienating every big developer out there that currently publish on the platform (Microsoft, Valve, AutoCAD, etc). But then, *gasp*, MS have an app store in Windows Phone 7 - they might do the same for Windows 8! And Google, they've pulled items from the Android store in the past - they might suddenly require that all developers submit to DNA testing! We can sit and come up with nonsensical predictions, that have limited grounding in reality and no grounding in basic business sense, forever. If Apple eventually "lock down the Mac", well, then I'll switch to Linux. Until then, hyperbole about what "might" happen, despite there being no evidence of it, is just stupid.

True, but Steam is way more than just a download tool. Look at something like Team Fortress 2 with achievements, friend lists, in game purchases, chat, game server hosting, locating etc. and you'll see what I mean.

To even match that, Apple will have to do a lot of work, and by a lot I mean an order of magnitude more than the PoS that is Game Center on the iPhone.

The existing Airs are sluggish compared to the rest of the Macbook line, and this model refresh isn't going after that because the people who buy Airs don't run CPU intensive apps like Xcode. The typical use case for the air is 1) college students with rich parents in humanities programs, 2) executives who travel a lot, and 3) gadget mavens who want to show off. In other words, browser, email, and maybe iLife. Coders typically jump straight to the 15" Pro models just for the bigger screen.

It's always been a prestige model and, secondarily, a testbed for miniaturization of components. I'm kind of impressed at the all-Flash storage, actually.

Do you really thing most smaller developers can't find a place to host their website and software which costs less than 30% of all their sales? Keep in mind that most developers don't need Steam/Microsoft/Amazon levels of bandwidth.

I think you're missing the point. Indie developers don't need the bandwidth, they need the exposure. Apple potentially gives this to them, assuming they don't screw it up like the iOS app store with 20 billion useless and annoying apps.

They just released the hybrid device (MacBook Air) that will eventually replace all consumer devices with built-in DRM. Steve will have no incentive to allow you to buy any software outside of the App Store, since he gets a 30% cut.

No, seriously guys. You already consented. He's going to stick it all the way in.

I think people like you _want_ Apple to become some evil company because you dislike something else about the company or its users.

No, seriously guy. No one consented to anything. It's a product announcement and evil DRM wasn't part of it.

When will/. readers acknowledge that they're not the entire fucking market for computing devices?

Because we're fucking pissed that corporations keep trying to pull this shit on people.

They don't need lock down for ANYTHING except to forcibly herd people through their stores. They don't need it for security, they don't need it for clean integration. It's purely for the purposes of monetization.

If there were even the inkling that the groups pushing this shit (in any company) were going to offer an easy means of disabling this for power users, I don't think there would be complaints. But they don't. And they want to push it far and wide, and make getting out from under it a pain in the ass.

Personally, I don't think there should be any threshold I should have to cross to use my property to the fullest. Even if no one else uses it, even if they aren't aware of it. The opportunity should be there no matter what.

So go ahead and defend Apple's behavior, until Intel, Microsoft, and the like go and try to push this shit industry wide and then since you are a tiny part of the market they ignore you completely.

You know it's funny. My father and father in-law were computer inexperienced windows users and were asking for my help a lot. I don't know how to use Windows so I could honestly reply "I don't know... I only know Unix and OSX..."

So both of them got Macs (at different times) and now I don't get any questions... Because shit just works for them...

Linux repositories are a general purpose mechanism; you can point at any "app store" you like with them. Furthermore, they do extensive dependency management and checking.

Apple's App Store gives you one source of applications

To be precise, it gives you one source of applications for whatever mechanism the App Store uses; nothing requires that you get all your apps from there, but you might have to go through the hideously burdensome process of clicking a few links in your browser, maybe typing in your credit card number, and answering a few questions from the installer or dragging an app bundle to/Applications to buy and install an app from the vendor.

and it doesn't seem to do much in the way of dependency management.

How many dependencies between downloadable components do OS X apps have? Linux repositories (and BSD ports/packages collections) have lots of libraries in them, and apps (and other libraries) might depend on them, so dependency checking is useful there. OS X apps, for better or worse, tend to be self-contained - either they only use libraries and frameworks that come with the OS, or they bring along the other libraries and frameworks for the ride.

Why is the paranoia of non-mac users posting in a web forum to be believed? Why should we worry when Apple is adding functionality, even if that functionality is locked down. The moment they start locking down existing functionality, I'll be the first to protest and I'll immediately start to consider abandoning OS X for Ubuntu. But none of what they announced today impacts my ability to do all the non-locked-down things that I do on my Mac.

I can still fire up a terminal window and have the full power of a CLI. I can probably even do that from their new Launch Pad app launcher too. I can still install the development tools so that I can build and install standard Unix software and use XCode to build Mac software. I can still install Eclipse when I want a different development environment (basically when I'm not developing Cocoa-based apps.) I can even fire up Emacs or Vim from within the the CLI, though I prefer working in either Eclipse or Qt Creator (when working with Qt.) And I can still install apps in any of the ways that I've always done...whether that be by MacPorts, Fink or the traditional application installation methods (dragging the.app to Applications or installing the.pkg.)

So why should I believe any of the "they're turning the Mac into the iPad" hysteria? They've just added an iPad-like layer on top of the traditional Mac environment without removing any of the access to that environment. I'm still in control of when/whether I wish to access stuff through the new layer or whether I'd like to do things the way I'm accustomed to doing them.

I wouldn't. Just at the place where I work. 47 mac desktops. 45 have bootcamp installed. 40 also have VMware fusion installed to run windows while they are running OSX. 37 never boot into OSX at all. We have to get them to boot into OSX once a month for updates for OSX. That itself is a major undertaking. The 7 who do not have bootcamp have never used anything but apple computers.

On the laptop front, 4 out of 39 apple laptops do not have bootcamp and VMware fusion installed.

Most of the people here wanted the apple hardware and not OSX. I am not sure how that is in other work places, but since this place has corporate license agreements and can install windows on many machines, they make use of it. I would say if people have access to windows, they are likely to install it on their apple machine. Even if it is a 'just in case' sort of thing.

Why is the paranoia of non-mac users posting in a web forum to be believed? Why should we worry when Apple is adding functionality, even if that functionality is locked down.

Because they have such systems in the field? And why should Apple release locked down functionality?

The moment they start locking down existing functionality, I'll be the first to protest and I'll immediately start to consider abandoning OS X for Ubuntu. But none of what they announced today impacts my ability to do all the non-locked-down things that I do on my Mac.

Apple won't lock down existing functionality, they can't. The issue is what Apple does in the future and how they get people to accept it.

So why should I believe any of the "they're turning the Mac into the iPad" hysteria? They've just added an iPad-like layer on top of the traditional Mac environment without removing any of the access to that environment. I'm still in control of when/whether I wish to access stuff through the new layer or whether I'd like to do things the way I'm accustomed to doing them.

Because Apple has shown a history over the past couple years that they believe users should be locked in a walled garden but provide no means for the user to opt out. In the future, new system buyers may be forced to spend extra money to not be locked down. We don't know for sure, but Apple's existing behavior and current course leaves no real room to be optimistic.

If I had spare money, I'd be pretty tempted by those machines -- consider that my current netbook, that I take everywhere, is something like a 1.2GHz "Celeron". It's competing with Atom, not with a desktop i7.

Why is the paranoia of non-mac users posting in a web forum to be believed?

Because extrapolating from existing trends isn't paranoia. Not trusting market driven statements (of course we aren't making an iPhone 4 don't put off your iPhone purchase because of these silly rumors) isn't paranoia.

One the trend is locked down devices with iOS.Another is moving OS X in the direction of those devices UI wise.

Apple has stated that the lock down is a positive feature that keeps users safe, improves quality and doesn't get in the way of what most people do. iOS device users, generally agree.

This is in-line with another trend: streamlining the user experience for the most common options to the point of excluding second tier ones (can't easily tell Time Machine to use part of a drive, even though it would be a reasonable and simple feature).

Tell me one good reason why Apple wouldn't want to bring enhanced security, quality and ease of use to the desktop if they can get enough developers to continue building apps for it? Besides the fact that they deny it.

Handle the update mechanism You don't have to worry about building update checking into your apps and nagging your users into automatically checking for and installing updates. The App Store will check and notify the users. This is probably a win for the whole ecosystem, since it will improve security and reduce the amount of things developers have to worry about

Handle the installation process No more worrying about setting up an installer (using the OS X one or using a third-party installer), or using a.dmg and instructing users to drag the app to the Applications folder. In the video, the app downloaded and installed itself with no unzipping, disk mounting, or installer. Makes it super simple for both the developer and the user.

You forget that it's only evil if Microsoft does it. For example, when MS bundles their browser with their OS, that's illegal/evil/anti-competitive. When Apple does it, it's just providing a useful service to the consumer.

There's a difference. If the Mac app store leads to a lockdown like iOS where you can ONLY install apps via the App store, then that's not like Linux distributions and package managers at all. Every distribution and it's package manager does not prevent the installation of programs outside of the package manager.

What now? The new Airs aren't much different than what was out yesterday -- the only differences are a new case, a higher-resolution screen, some updated specs, stereo speakers, on-board Flash, the same trackpad as the rest of the Macbook line, a smaller version, etc. Its still an OSX laptop, nothing 'hybridized' about it. There's no more DRM in the new Air than in any other MacBook. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Second, Steve said you could still get software from other sources. It would be platform suicide to do anything else. They're just trying to make it more convenient for developers and users. I'm personally curious to look at the terms and see if open source software can be distributed using it -- in those cases it could basically be a repository just like on any Linux distro.

Finally, I haven't consented to anything like that. If OS X Lion were to implement the changes you seem to think exist, I would stick with Snow Leopard. If the changes were made retroactive and made it difficult to use old versions somehow, I could install Ubuntu. The Mac platform suits my needs for now (a Unix platform with nice laptop hardware integration) -- its not actually a cult, so I can re-evaluate my options at any time.

I can still install the development tools so that I can build and install standard Unix software and use XCode to build Mac software.

The fear is that Apple will start charging $99 per year to use XCode.

I can still install Eclipse when I want a different development environment (basically when I'm not developing Cocoa-based apps.)

The fear is that Apple will start charging $99 per year to use XCode so that you can compile, install, and run your own copy of Eclipse.

And I can still install apps in any of the ways that I've always done...whether that be by MacPorts, Fink or the traditional application installation methods (dragging the.app to Applications or installing the.pkg.)

The fear is that Mac OS Xi will require mandatory verification of digital signatures in the same way that iOS already does, blocking MacPorts, Fink, and drag and drop.

I never thought I'd see the day when there'd be a major desktop OS that's even more closed than Windows. But, here it is.

Here it is? Where? Did they add DRM to OS X? Did they take away Xcode? Did they remove the ability to download tarballs, zip files, and disk images? Did they take away the Finder and the Terminal application? Did they remove Java? Did they remove bash, Perl and Python? Did they prevent Flash from running in the browser? Did they disable sudo? Did they make it so you can't install Fink, Mac Ports, and Homebrew? Did they disable Applescript? Did they remove the Automator? Did they take away anything?
Did they remove one, single, solitary capability or piece of functionality?

Maybe Spaces, it's unclear to me if Spaces is part of the mix in Mission Control or if it went away. I hope they didn't remove it as I like multiple desktops...

I have the nagging suspicion that Apple is indeed going to turn anything but the MacPro into a larger version of an iPhone, or the equivalent of an XBox.

Xbox is locked down, Windows is not. Could it be that iOS is locked down, but not OS X?

Apple gets a 30% chunk, but IMHO, it is a good thing to have long term.

Wow, and people talk about the "Microsoft tax".

Getting 70% is a developer fantasy. By the time you find a publisher, and they sell to a distributor, who then sells it to a retail store... a developer is lucky to get 15% to 20%. Digital distribution is a game changer. For a small developer implementing an online store with support and returns, paying for international payment processing, bandwidth, etc is non-trivial. If that adds up to less than 30% then the difference may easily be justified by the increased traffic and exposure of a high profile site like one provided by Apple. Unless you are a large corporation Apple's deal is not bad at all.

Ubuntu also has an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Software_Center]app store[/url], that doesn't mean anything is locked down

Ubuntu doesn't have a platform already out there that requires you to use their app store and doesn't allow you to install applications from outside of it, and they certainly haven't made any statements about how great this locked-down approach is for their users. Apple do, and they have. That's an important difference.

You have a tiny computer without as much battery, so it's a sensible move to keep the clock speed down. I'm running a 2 GHz C2D computer right now, and the CPU is never pegged. The hard drive is usually what slows it down. This 1.86 GHz Macbook Air will probably be faster.

Clock speed is not an absolute measure of computer speed, and for what most people do on their computers these days (email/web browsing), any modern computer is enormous overkill.

... when announcing Lion and its new features that sound like they're going to brutalize processing power.

The new features don't sound that much more intensive than what exists today in OSX, and Apple has been getting better at improving efficiency and using the GPU, so you might even see performance gains.

With CPU speeds like these, it almost seems like they just didn't want to say the word 'Atom'.

Or maybe they didn't use the word "Atom" because it's not an Atom processor, and maybe they didn't use an Atom processor because a low-voltage C2D was a better design choice for their needs.

That's definitely NOT visible from todays announcements. The App Store for Mac is an extremely good idea, but it's entirely optional. There'll still be a lot of software distributed through "classic" channels, as the App Store will of course be closely guarded and most probably won't allow porn, pirate tools or anything else Apple deems unsuitable. Aside from those issues, a lot of companies will want to offer more licensing options than are possible through the App Store. However, it will be a great place for individuals to get their consumer-level apps from and it will take a lot of burden away from people who have to support them.
Conclusion: It's optional, not a lockdown for Mac OS.

Apple holds no monopolies of any kind, and are not anywhere NEAR the penetration Microsoft accomplished. There is a RAGING WAR going on in the handset space, so its impossible to call monopoly there. Itunes has many competitors, as does Macintosh, ipod, etc and so forth. Apple has absolutely ZERO monopolies. Your analogy does not hold water.

That is a HUGE HUGE if. I didn't see any sign they plan to stop you from downloading and installing whatever you want. All these upmodded "The Apple machine is locking down OS X!" comments are quite sad.

Sigh... I should have invested in a tin foil hat startup years ago. I probably could have retired by now!

Apple has diligently maintained, for at least ten years now, a downloads area for OS X. All the downloads are free, but not all the software is free. Indeed, much of it is shareware or demo versions of commercial software.

It would make life easier to pay one source when downloading these applications, rather than figure out where to buy them. So that's a good thing. I'll play along.

But the moment Apple makes the tiniest move to take away my ability to write my own software and share it external to their portal, I'm out. It's too much of a headache to deal with proscripted software design choices -- whether good or bad. Setting up Linux for a home environment is becoming less of a headache every six months, and that's the route I would go. I don't even have to change my hardware. Just say the word...

In all of those cases you mentioned, you're dealing speculating that they may do something in the future. I said in my original post that the minute they lock down OS X from doing things that are possible in other OS environments I'll be the first to start switching to those environments, but what they announced today doesn't do that. When Apple starts charging $99 for XCode, then I'll start bitching. When OS X starts requiring digital signatures, then I'll start bitching. But to start bitching now before Apple has done any of these things indicates a predisposition towards criticizing Apple.

All the anti-Apple responses to my post can basically be boiled down to, "The writing is on the wall and the announcements today are the first step towards what we're afraid of." But the point of my post is that OS X Lion appears no more locked down today that OS X Snow Leopard. All of what was announced today was an optional layer on top of the normal OS X that can do things that people may find useful. If Apple's vision for the future of their platform is, in fact, the walled garden that so many people here fear, there's plenty of time if and when they actually do start locking things down to abandon the platform for other options. But today's announcements aren't examples of them starting to do that.

I use OS X because it gives me everything I need. I have the power of a true Unix environment without the time commitment that other Unix OSs require to configure they way I like them. And with various applications installed (Quicksilver, Witch and a few others), OS X gives me unparalleled ability to work without ever having to touch a mouse or trackpad. As soon as this situation changes or other platforms evolve to offer me more, I'll switch...it's that simple. I'm not a technophobe who has problems adapting to new platforms.

The thing that actually does upset me about today's announcements is how much Apple seems to be committed to making the mouse and multi-touch gestures an essential part of using their OS. If people were making complaints like this, I'd be generally supportive of their raising those issues. But as long as what's being offered is pure FUD, I'll point out that there's nothing substantive there and that everything being presented is speculative.

Apple is not going to fucking lock down Mac OS X. This is a completely absurd fear. But don't worry, you'll get modded +5 with tons of replies agreeing with you, and I'll get troll or flamebait.

There are reasons Apple has locked down app installation on iOS. They are ease of use and to protect against malware and otherwise shoddy software. The App Store on the Mac is voluntary, and there is absolutely zero reason to think they will make it mandatory. Do you think they are going to tell Autodesk and Adobe and Microsoft that if you want to sell apps, you have to go through the App Store? Do you think they are going to banish things like MacPorts?

Why would Apple give up the thriving third party Mac software market? Because jackasses like you think Steve Jobs wants to control you? You guys (at least, a sizable number of you) are insane, seriously bat-shit mental, if you think that's what Apple is all about.

That's called a slippery slope fallacy. Now, just because it is a logical fallacy does not mean that it is wrong (it just means that it is a faulty way to make your case) but at this stage it is nothing but trolling.

I don't get (like some other posters have stated) how adding more and different functionality to what is existent is a step towards locking down Macs. Could it happen? Yes, it could. All of the nuclear warheads in the U.S. could also detonate tomorrow, obliterating all of us Americans. That's possible but extremely improbable.

Speaking as someone who does support for Apple computers... that's just fucking idiotic.

Granted, the VMware fusion bits can be excused, if they're spending most of their time in OS X and just using VMware or Parallels for small stuff, but why on earth would you pay so much money for Apple computers, if you aren't using OS X?

Sure, they look nice, but the mice are... well... annoying to me.

And the laptops might look more rugged than others, but I doubt they are more rugged, and they definitely aren't rated for it.

You don't seem to understand Mac OS X software installation. You also don't seem to understand that you can still install apps in other ways besides the Mac App Store, such as double-clicking a downloads.pkg file. Also, you don't seem to understand that Macs can have many different applications stores active all at once.

I'm not sure anecdotes are useful. The small dev shop I was working in today has maybe a dozen Macs for development and testing. None have bootcamp or Windows of any flavor. That's what the Windows boxes are for. So unless someone has actual numbers on how many Macs have Windows of some flavor, I guess I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.

Expensive $9000 NDA licensed devkits. Just like on home consoles today. You think the idea is outrageous, right? Well, yes, today it is. Not in 5-10 years, when 10.9 finally takes away the ability to run any software except software signed by apple, distributed exclusively on the app store. Locked, right now apps are locked on the iPhone.

Our Macs do a more than satisfactory job at analyzing large amounts of scientific data.

Seriously? Number crunching with macs? Why pay for the fancy plastic while you can invest the money to get a processor with a better FLOPS capability and more memory? I bought a box for number crunching some months ago and I paid 500 Euros, including screen!. I spent the money only on two parts: CPU and RAM. Good luck getting the same performance/cost ratio on a Mac...

Google voice was banned forever for no other reason than Apple didn't want to let Google in.

Absolutely false. Google functionality is built into iOS. There are other Google apps in the App Store, and there are even Google Voice apps in the app store. Apple did not approve the official GV app for specific concerns about it uploading a user's contacts to Google, and replacing a rather prominent core aspect of the iPhone. Google could easily update the app to address those concerns, but they won't. Partly because they have an excellent Google Voice web app (which Apple has no ability or desire to block), and partly because it works as a propaganda tool against iOS.

Their policy explicitly states that apps that "duplicate" (aka "compete with") built in functions will not be allowed.

Correct, but that's not what you said, and not "technically not what you said", but not even in the spirit of what you said.

Apple's policies are all about control, lockdown, and ensuring that nothing gets on a device without 30% going to Apple.

Bullshit. This doesn't even make any sense. Do you have any idea how much it costs to go for that 30% cut? They have to run an extremely high-volume service. Apple makes orders of magnitude more money on the hardware than they do on the app/music/video stores. Those stores exist primarily to add value to the hardware they sell, and looking at their quarterly report from Monday, it's delusional to say it isn't working.

They have nothing to do with the user experience, as evidenced by the fact that so many apps that enhance the user experience are banned with no reference to their quality or usefulness.

You fail at logic. "Nothing to do with" does not follow from not approving some apps that you think violate this. Apple clearly believes that a certain level of consistency provides for a better user experience than a bunch of little hacks to the UI. You don't have to agree with their assessment, but to ascribe avarice and control/lockdown to an honest difference in approach is to completely throw out rational thought and engage in Anti-Apple fanboyism.

By definition, Apple makes choices based on what will make them more money.

The fact is not about blocking any specific competitor, but blocking specific applications on no grounds other than it competes with (defined as "duplicates") some software Apple has created. On the face of it, this is bad for consumers.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, Apple has a habit of doing things that are considered to be very controversial and then using marketing and clueless users to turn it to their advantage.

I'm not saying it will definitely happen, I'm saying it's possible. That it would not surprise me to see in the next year or two, Steve Jobs at a keynote saying how beneficial it is for the next version of MacOS to only allow installation from "approved app stores". That you can get software from Steam, from the Mac App Store, etc. but cannot just go download software from "unknown locations and of questionable quality" so that it will enhance the user experience of the MacOS. And many people who have been bitten by downloading malware or a virus on their Windows machines saying how this will provide quality software and protect the consumers. Etc.

You call it absurd. I call it a nightmare. You say it could never happen. I pray that it never happens. This is not "Anti-Apple Fanboism". This is just me being wary of Apple achieving its dream of complete vertical control where not only will it control the hardware and operating system of its machines, but the rest of the software too, and call it a "feature".

In colloquial use, "Linux" in the context it was used by GGP clearly did not refer to Android and other such applications. It referred to "desktop Linux" such as Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora etc; and the corresponding repositories.

If a particular company selling Linux-based products (such as Android) with locked repositories was getting a similar repository for their desktop solutions, I'd sure as hell assume that they plan to lock that down as well.

Ultimately, I think the point is that all reasons that Apple (and fans) has listed so far for iOS "walled garden" - including app store lockdown - are not form-factor dependent, and just as applicable to the desktop, if you sign up to them. What more, I think that the reasons are valid from some perspective, and that a lot of people will be quite happy if OS X is locked down just the same as iOS is. Geeks (including myself) would be unhappy, for sure, but geeks are the minority.

The Mac has always been treated as a fundamentally different platform to iOS. And iOS developers will still need a Mac to actually develop apps, so obviously the Mac will not be a mandatory walled garden.

It's like looking at Steam for Windows and screaming that Windows is going to be locked down. It's idiotic.